Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
The answer is we don't know.
Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
The answer is we don't know.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Who is Windsor?
He's a bloke that lives in Slough, SL4 1PD who is being sued by someone who alleges he sexually assaulted and raped them when they were 17....
Prince Andrew - I was taken by Planigale's reference to him as "Windsor" so I've nicked it.
According to the link, the relevant questions are these:
Not everybody is a victim. But I would bet a lot that everybody knows people who have been victims, particularly relating to the "unwanted sexual advance" phrase. This seems so broad as to be almost meaningless. I would be suspicious of anybody who answers "no."
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Once again
The NPA between SDFL and Esptein states:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6205856-Epstein-NPA.html
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the States Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement....
In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinova...
The Civil settlement between Epstein and Giuffre states:In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinova...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21172730/jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre-settlement.pdf
"First and Second Parties further stipulate and agree that this Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfillment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to and in conformity with the Non-Prosecution Agreement, its Addendum, and its Affirmation (collectively, the “NPA’), between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida."
The highlighted, bolded red bit is crucial. If an agreement states that it is pursuant to (which means in legal terms "in accordance with") the terms or conditions of a legal document, and that document becomes invalid or has no standing, then the whole agreement becomes invalid and unenforceable, and has no standing. This is a fact of law. Its tantamount to making to an agreement that states it is in accordance with a law that is no longer a law. Lets say I grow & sell cannabis, and you sue me for some reason related to that. We agree to settle, and in the settlement agreement it states that I agree to never again grow and sell cannabis in accordance with Law 12345 in return for you not making a complaint to the police about my growing and selling of cannabis. If the law later changes, and the growing and selling of cannabis becomes legalised, the settlement loses standing and I am no longer bound by its terms. It becomes unenforceable because Law 12345 is no longer an enforceable law.
Once again
The NPA between SDFL and Esptein states:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6205856-Epstein-NPA.html
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the States Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement....The Civil settlement between Epstein and Giuffre states:
In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinova...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21172730/jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre-settlement.pdf
"First and Second Parties further stipulate and agree that this Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfillment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to and in conformity with the Non-Prosecution Agreement, its Addendum, and its Affirmation (collectively, the “NPA’), between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida."The highlighted, bolded red bit is crucial. If an agreement states that it is pursuant to (which means in legal terms "in accordance with") the terms or conditions of a legal document, and that document becomes invalid or has no standing, then the whole agreement becomes invalid and unenforceable, and has no standing. This is a fact of law. Its tantamount to making to an agreement that states it is in accordance with a law that is no longer a law.
Lets say I grow & sell cannabis, and you sue me for some reason related to that. We agree to settle, and in the settlement agreement it states that I agree to never again grow and sell cannabis in accordance with Law 12345 in return for you not making a complaint to the police about my growing and selling of cannabis. If the law later changes, and the growing and selling of cannabis becomes legalised, the settlement loses standing and I am no longer bound by its terms. It becomes unenforceable because Law 12345 is no longer an enforceable law.
Your interpretation of what is invalidated is wrong, we shall have to see if the judge touches on this.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
... you forgot to say "in you opinion"
It is an indisputable fact of law that an agreement cannot be valid or enforceable if its terms are based on a law or a legal document that is itself not valid or enforceable.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Once again
The NPA between SDFL and Esptein states:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6205856-Epstein-NPA.html
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the States Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement....The Civil settlement between Epstein and Giuffre states:
In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinova...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21172730/jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre-settlement.pdf
"First and Second Parties further stipulate and agree that this Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfillment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to and in conformity with the Non-Prosecution Agreement, its Addendum, and its Affirmation (collectively, the “NPA’), between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida."The highlighted, bolded red bit is crucial. If an agreement states that it is pursuant to (which means in legal terms "in accordance with") the terms or conditions of a legal document, and that document becomes invalid or has no standing, then the whole agreement becomes invalid and unenforceable, and has no standing. This is a fact of law. Its tantamount to making to an agreement that states it is in accordance with a law that is no longer a law.
Lets say I grow & sell cannabis, and you sue me for some reason related to that. We agree to settle, and in the settlement agreement it states that I agree to never again grow and sell cannabis in accordance with Law 12345 in return for you not making a complaint to the police about my growing and selling of cannabis. If the law later changes, and the growing and selling of cannabis becomes legalised, the settlement loses standing and I am no longer bound by its terms. It becomes unenforceable because Law 12345 is no longer an enforceable law.
It wouldn't be valid as a contract cannot cloak a crime or an illegal act. The law of the land is higher power than an agreement between you and me.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I don't think that lying during deliberation is an "offense" as such; it's more the problem of whether he has made public statements that contradict anything he said during selection. Lying during selection can be an offense.
But, it's not yet known how he answered any questions about child abuse during selection, or for that matter whether he was asked anything along those lines at all.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
He was asked about sexual abuse. It was question number 48 per the link Chris Halkides provided.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
'Beam-me-up' Scotty said in the press interview he 'flew' through the questionnaire and seemed puzzled by the question. Plus, he has lawyered up.
I am guessing he is the type who thinks questionnaires are a waste of time so just quickly dashes off the ticks without thinking.
What a prize twit.
I am guessing he is the type who thinks questionnaires are a waste of time so just quickly dashes off the ticks without thinking.
What a prize twit.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Illegally, I imagine.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In this case, fairly easily. Epstein was not the party with the negotiating power, he was under duress, unless he agreed to a suitable deal with Giuffre then he would suffer criminal prosecution and relevant penalties. Giuffre was the party with the freedom to make a deal. My guess is the intent was to prevent Giuffre subsequently suing him on the basis of his admission of guilt in any jurisdiction, and either as a natural person or as a corporate entity. It may have been also intended to protect the immediate 'family' e.g. Maxwell, but I believe Maxwell subsequently settled with Giuffre following civil proceedings. The latter may imply that either protection does not extend beyond Epstein as a natural person or as a corporate entity, or that Giuffre breached her agreement by suing Maxwell. I think the argument about jurisdictions is fallacious, contracts in any one jurisdiction are in general enforceable in all. The argument is about whether the contract applies to Windsor, I suspect the court will rule it does not. I think the defence are justified in raising this issue.
I think Giuffre is a gold digger. I suspect her lawyers are gold diggers. They see a wealthy person with a public persona they think they will get a deal with. My guess is that they have misjudged here, I think that a settlement will not be agreed and the complaint will have to go to the expense of a court case with the risk of losing. Even if they win, enforcing payment is problematic, Windsor could go bankrupt, payment could be 10%, and the family could still support him.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In general, yes. Under the "full faith and credit" provisions of the US Constitution and accompanying federal and state statutes.
However, the difference here is that the BASIS for those terms of the settlement that Windsor's lawyers are arguing about have already been invalidated.
What a disgraceful thing to say about a victim of sex trafficking and sexual abuse. Do you speak about rape victims with such disdain as well?
.
.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The courts represent the law of the land.
If you were to make a deal with me not to report your cannabis growing whilst it was illegal to grow cannabis and I took your money and then reported you to the police anyway, good luck in trying to get your money back!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
If you were to make a deal with me not to report your sex trafficking of under age girls and I took your money and then reported you to the police anyway, good luck in trying to get your money back!
Thank you for pointing out how that works
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
There is a big difference between a settlement as approved by a court, and your entering into a private contract with me.
As an example, I give you a contract to 'top' somebody in exchange for a sum of money. You go to the police. Can I claim back my money from you?
Re Epstein, personally, I can't see that it is a valid contract that excludes Andrew from a civil writ as a 'potential defendant', for the following reasons:
- As the judge points out, what does 'potential' mean here?
- Brettel, for Prince Andrew says it's someone Giuffre knew of at the time who might come within her sights to sue.
- Epstein was settling as a result of his felon charge of sex trafficking minors.
- Prince Andrew would not come under that ambit as he would have been the 'john', therefore was not a 'potential defendant' under the same ambit as Epstein.
- Epstein is stated in writing in the contract to be the only person to have agreed the contract other than Giuffre.
- Epstein is deceased, and thus cannot vary the contract made whilst alive.
In addition, I doubt it would be legal for Epstein to have waived liability for anybody other than himself and those specifically named.
However, one can never tell in advance which way a judge will decide. There is always the [remote] possibility Prince Andrew gets the case dismissed.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What exactly is the status of the “settlement as approved by the court”? Is it an agreement between the parties, or is it an undertaking given to the court?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Coming to an agreement (settlement) to dispose of a civil court action and to thus close it, preventing the same case from ever being brought again, is very different from a contract between private parties, corporate or individual, because of course, such a contract can be breached or claimed to have been breached thus repudiating it, and damages pursued as a result thereof.
The judge in the Giuffre/Prince Andrew case might well find that as Epstein is deceased the agreement therefore cannot be varied and thus Prince Andrew is protected if he can see a way that links him to Epstein's agreement, as 'royalty' was covered in relation to the same Epstein case, albeit not mentioned in the agreement Prince Andrew is relying on.